通用简洁?从行政和索赔人的角度来看,所谓的通用信贷的简单性

IF 1.1 4区 社会学 Q3 SOCIAL ISSUES
K. Summers, David Young
{"title":"通用简洁?从行政和索赔人的角度来看,所谓的通用信贷的简单性","authors":"K. Summers, David Young","doi":"10.1332/175982720x15791324318339","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"A key aim of Universal Credit is to simplify the social security system. While several aspects of its introduction have received critical attention, this overarching aim continues to receive acceptance and support. Drawing on two empirical studies involving means-tested benefit claimants,\n we aim to deconstruct the idea of ‘simplicity’ as a feature of social security design and argue that it is contingent on perspective. We suggest that claims of simplicity can often be justified from an administrative perspective but are not experienced as such from the perspective\n of claimants, who instead can face greater responsibility for managing complexity.","PeriodicalId":45090,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Poverty and Social Justice","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2020-02-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"9","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Universal simplicity? The alleged simplicity of Universal Credit from administrative and claimant perspectives\",\"authors\":\"K. Summers, David Young\",\"doi\":\"10.1332/175982720x15791324318339\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"A key aim of Universal Credit is to simplify the social security system. While several aspects of its introduction have received critical attention, this overarching aim continues to receive acceptance and support. Drawing on two empirical studies involving means-tested benefit claimants,\\n we aim to deconstruct the idea of ‘simplicity’ as a feature of social security design and argue that it is contingent on perspective. We suggest that claims of simplicity can often be justified from an administrative perspective but are not experienced as such from the perspective\\n of claimants, who instead can face greater responsibility for managing complexity.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45090,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Poverty and Social Justice\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-02-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"9\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Poverty and Social Justice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1332/175982720x15791324318339\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIAL ISSUES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Poverty and Social Justice","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1332/175982720x15791324318339","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SOCIAL ISSUES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9

摘要

通用信贷的一个关键目标是简化社会保障体系。虽然其介绍的几个方面受到了关键的注意,但这一总体目标继续得到接受和支持。根据两项涉及经济状况调查的福利申领人的实证研究,我们的目标是解构“简单”作为社会保障设计特征的想法,并认为它取决于视角。我们认为,从管理的角度来看,简单性的要求往往是合理的,但从索赔人的角度来看,却没有这样的经验,相反,索赔人可能面临管理复杂性的更大责任。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Universal simplicity? The alleged simplicity of Universal Credit from administrative and claimant perspectives
A key aim of Universal Credit is to simplify the social security system. While several aspects of its introduction have received critical attention, this overarching aim continues to receive acceptance and support. Drawing on two empirical studies involving means-tested benefit claimants, we aim to deconstruct the idea of ‘simplicity’ as a feature of social security design and argue that it is contingent on perspective. We suggest that claims of simplicity can often be justified from an administrative perspective but are not experienced as such from the perspective of claimants, who instead can face greater responsibility for managing complexity.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.00
自引率
23.10%
发文量
20
期刊介绍: The Journal of Poverty and Social Justice provides a unique blend of high-quality research, policy and practice from leading authors in the field related to all aspects of poverty and social exclusion. The journal has changed its name to reflect its wider scope and has growing international coverage. Content spans a broad spectrum of poverty-related topics including social security, employment and unemployment, regeneration, housing, health, education and criminal justice, as well as issues of ethnicity, gender, disability and other inequalities as they relate to social justice.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信